What I find interesting is that they see it as a reward to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

As I see it, the Council on Foreign Relations is the biggest playground for people in the Military, News, Hollywood, Government and the rest of the cabal to come up with new business like 9/11 and get everyone on-board.

At some level, it's actually really insulting to me that SO MANY world 'leaders' could band together in a few small 'select', 'voluntary' groups, and that so few people would care at all. Is the rest of humanity really this stupid? It almost makes me feel that the effort to fight them isn't worth it, since we 'can't' win against so much 'power'.

And then I remember that the Truth (most importantly Simon and Hoi's original research) has already set me free, and these b**tards will never again force me, actively or passively, to believe anything they say about anything. I want to spread this freedom as far and wide as I can, so I will NOT stop pursuing truth, no matter how hard they make it, or how much I suffer. I hope all of us never lose contact with each other.

(Hoi, please accept my apology for a post that didn't include original thoughts or research.)

Here is an article from the state owned news service NRK, about how "radical islamists" are sent from Guatanamo to a University in Medina, Saudi Arabia, to be de-radicalized after the stay at Guatanamo....

It also talks a lot about how "radicalized" Muslims in the West have become.

Is this blatant propaganda? It sure was hard to find the Professors name (Muhammad bin Al-Uqla) anywhere else than these Norwegian newsstories...

Taylor & Francis, founded in the City of London in 1798, is the oldest commercial journals publisher in the world, and one of the leading global academic publishers. We publish over 900 peer-reviewed research journals and around 1,800 new books each year: our backlist is in excess of 20,000 specialist titles.

It deals specifically in "Behavioral Science" though it's publishing house "Psychology Press".

When we open the report we finally get to know who is behind it - the real source - not mentioned anywhere in the article by the NRK-"journalists" Laila ?. Bakken and Atta Ansari. Oh, how easy journalism must be these days!

The Military Balance is the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ annual assessment of the military capabilities and defence economics of 170 countries world-wide. It is an essential resource for those involved in security policymaking, analysis and research.

They are obviously very interested in linking the Muslims to terrorism..

Patrick Cronin, Director of Studies, International Institute for Strategic Studies, welcomed participants and highlighted three specific issues to guide the discussion: to what degree those responsible for the Madrid and London attacks were ‘home-grown’ or ‘imported’ terrorists, or indeed both; whether Islam had a role in the attacks and whether it could play in preventing further terrorist recruitment; and how to the above issues affect the elaboration and implementation of counter-terrorism policy.

Chairperson Robert Whalley, UK Home Office Former Director of Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence, said the Forum was a great opportunity to hear different viewpoints on Islam and terrorism. He informed participants about the reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee, to which the government has responded, as well as the Home Office produced narrative of what happened on 7 July 2005. (!!!!!!)

The Spanish government was currently trying to understand the driving forces of terrorism. What drove someone who spoke Spanish, had lived in a country for more than ten years, still had links with their country of origin and suffered from no direct ‘identity crisis’, to perpetrate mass murder in a suicide-attack, he asked. Why had jihad as a concept settled in Muslim communities across Europe?

- The scale of the Madrid attack was unprecedented in Spain, despite numerous terrorist attacks carried out by separatist group ETA. - The change of government three days after the attack. He explained that the change of government, inextricable from the attacks, had created a divisive atmosphere in Spanish politics preventing a blame-free discussion on terrorism. - The attack highlighted links between terrorism and integration. Immigration was a new trend in Spain; while ten years ago there were some tens of thousands of immigrants in the country, the number currently stood at an estimated three million. In fact, the immigration flow had been so quick that Spain had no consciousness of having a minority community. He suggested that this lack of consciousness was one of the reasons why Spain had seen no backlash against Muslims following the attack.

He suggested that mainstream observers of international relations now considered al-Qaeda less of an organisation and more of an ideology that could motivate without support from above. He agreed that so far there was no proof that the higher echelons of al-Qaeda had been involved in the two attacks. However he refused to believe that there were no links. He suggested that the coordination and intensity of attacks were evidence itself of outside involvement. Without outside involved, he believed attacks would be more random targeting bars and restaurants, as witnessed in Israel.

Ambassador Blackwill joined Barbour Griffith & Rogers in November 2004 after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning under President George W. Bush. In this position, Ambassador Blackwill was responsible for government-wide policy planning to help develop and coordinate the mid- and long-term direction of American foreign policy. Bob also served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq, was the Administration’s Coordinator for U.S. policies regarding Afghanistan and Iran, and traveled on Air Force One with the President in the latter stages of the 2004 Presidential campaign.

During his 14 years as a Harvard faculty member, he was Associate Dean of the Kennedy School, taught foreign and defense policy and public policy analysis, and directed executive training programs for business and government leaders from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and Kazakhstan, as well as General Officers from Russia and the People’s Republic of China.

So what is Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR)?

"YOUR GLOBAL PARTNER IN GOVERNMENT, COMMERCE AND MEDIA"

"Lobbying, Crisis Management and Media Relations"

With BGR at your side, you have a powerhouse partner in global government, commerce and media. BGR provides proven success in lobbying, crisis management and media relations. Contact BGR now to consider your next move.Copyright ? 2010 BGR Group. All Rights Reserved.

Is this like a service for rich bored billionaires with world domination aspirations?

With offices in Washington, D.C., and London -- and extensive business relationships around the world -- the firm represents a diverse, blue-chip clientele which includes Fortune 500 companies, international governments, trade associations, non-profits, academic institutions, hospitals, coalitions, and state and local governments.

When business executives, coalitions, and government leaders seek a strategic partner for their most important challenges, they turn to a trusted partner: BGR.

At BGR, we listen to our clients, understand their business, agree on common objectives, and then go to work as zealous advocates, whether it is in the corporate board room, on the battlefields of new media, or in dynamic government councils.

Zealous (From Mirriam-Webster Dictionary): filled with or characterized by zeal : marked by fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal

Say hi to the team!

Their Asian department has this to say:

Nothing happens in China without relationships. To be successful, you must not only manage the relationship with Chinese government officials but also relationships with other private sector organizations, businesses, clients and the media. Your business must be perceived as making an investment in China, not just exploiting its people or resources. MDC Strategies can develop a full public relations strategy.

SUCCESS IN BUSINESS!!

After ten years of work with a coalition, achieved passage of The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 meeting every goal set out by client.

WHAT?! :blink: 10 years of work? This is the first bail-out, right?! The one Henry Paulson forced through Congress, right? Holy schmoly...

Helped new client to establish a relationship and become a preferred vendor of the U.S. Mint.

Win...

Facilitated conclusion of a bilateral agreement to construct a U.S. military facility in a foreign country, and then worked with Congress to ensure that sufficient funds were appropriated to proceed with the project.

Nice going...

Successful visit to Washington of prime minister, including op-ed in Wall Street Journal and meeting with President Bush (May 2008).

Blackwill, according to ciaonet.org, served as "Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the Belfer Lecturer in International Security at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is also Faculty Chair of the School's Executive Programs for U.S. and Russian General Officers and for members of the Russian State Duma; of the Kennedy School's Initiative on U.S.-China Relations; and of the Executive Program for Senior Chinese Military Officers. His last position in government was as President George Herbert Walker Bush's Special Assistant for Soviet and European Affairs

"Prior to his academic career, Blackwill spent 22 years in the foreign service and served at the State Department under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, and George P. Shultz. He was U.S. Ambassador and Chief Negotiator at the Conventional Force Negotiations with the Warsaw Pact in Vienna and was Special Assistant to President George Herbert Walker Bush for European and Soviet Affairs in 1989-90.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), known in England as the American branch of The Royal Institute of International Affairs was set up to bring in a world governmental system to rule every nation in a socialistic/Communistic fashion using the British empire as the nucleus for the system. The British Empire still exists, it just continued under the guise of a knight and shining armor, called the USA. As the official historian for the CFR, Professor Carroll Quigley had access to the records of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and was told to update them and study them. He wrote two books about this group called "Tragedy & Hope" and its follow up called "The Anglo American Establishment".

In “The Anglo-American Establishment”, the first words read:

"The Rhodes Scholarship, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes seventh will, are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire."

Empires never fall, they only expand. In case anybody didnt know, Carroll Quigley was the man who was told by this establishment to pick Bill Clinton for the Rhodes Scholarship.

On page 950 of "Tragedy & Hope" he makes it known that he has no aversion to this establishment or its aims, stating:

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it and to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

On page 1247-1248 of "Tragedy & Hope" he discusses the establishments control and manipulation of the political parties and the political process:

“The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

There are many quotes explaining in detail how they control the political process and select the politicians we elect into office, but in "The Anglo-American Establishment” he generalized the methods they use in the beginning of the second chapter called 'The Cecil Bloc' on page 15:

Parties change, administrations change, but the policies stay the same regardless of who is in office.

On page 324 of "Tragedy & Hope" he discusses the financial mechanisms they would use to accomplish this global system of control:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

On page 282-283 of “The Anglo American Establishment” he talks about the creation of the United Nations, this same group was also behind the League of Nations:

"From this point onward, the Milner group increasingly emphasized the necessity for building up this Oceanic block. In England the basic propaganda work was done through The Round Table and Lionel Curtis, while in the U.S. it was done through the Rhodes scholarship organization, especially through Clarence Streit and Frank Aydelotte. In England, Curtis wrote a series of books and articles advocating a new federal organization built around English-speaking countries. The chief work of this nature was his Civitas Dei, which appeared in three volumes 1934-37. A one-volume addition was issued in 1938 with the title The Commonwealth of God. The first two volumes of his work are nothing more than the rehash and expansion of the older work The Commonwealth of Nations (1916). By a superficial and frequently erroneous rewriting of world history, the authors sought to review the evolution of the “Commonwealth” idea and to show that all of history leads to its fulfillment and achievement in federation. Ultimately, this federation will be worldwide but on route it must pass through stages of which the chief federation is of the English-speaking peoples. Writing early in 1937 he advocated that the League of Nations be destroyed by the mass resignation of the British democracies. These should then take the initiative in forming a new league, also at Geneva, which would have no power to enforce anything but would merely form a kind of international conference. Since it would be foolish to expect any federation to evolve from any such organization as this, a parallel, but quite separate effort should be made to create an international commonwealth, based on the example of the United States in 1788. This international commonwealth would differ from the League of Nations in that its members would yield a part of their sovereignty, and a central organization would function directly on individuals and not merely on states."

Now you know who the U.N’s founders are that Bush sr. was referring to in his speech in the Oval office about forging a "New World Order" i.e. one world government:

"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.

When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Barack Obama was asked about his ties to the Council on Foreign Relations during his election campaign. In the video below he admits that he's spoken their before and claimed he didn’t know he was a CFR member. The CFR is a private institution; you are not allowed to speak at the CFR unless you are a member of it. So he's a good actor but not a good liar.

Carnegie and Rockefeller spent also millions upon millions doing the same all over the West, but especially in Germany, where their efforts would prepare the ground for the German Nazi movement, whose ideology was almost entirely borrowed from American eugenics, as documented also by Edwin Black. The point of the eugenics movement was to defeat the workers movements that were becoming more and more powerful in the West. And also the Jewish people. Why them? In my view, because the Law of Moses, around which Jewish civilization is organized, was born, according to tradition (Exodus), in a slave revolt, and in consequence it is exquisitely designed to protect the working classes from the abuses of those in power. The repressive elements in the Western ruling classes have always understood the danger to them of the liberalism and egalitarianism of Jewish ideology, and in consequence they have always persecuted the Jews. (Source [15a] from the site)

Source: [15a] Gil-White, F. J. 2005. The Crux of World History. Volume 1. The Book of Genesis: The birth of the Jewish people. Historical and Investigative Research.

Francisco Gil-White seems to be a Zionist.

Here is a short exerpt from an interview she gave to a Norwegian newspaper.

Journalist:

In Norway, and probably in most of the rest of the world, the perception of US foreign policy as being staunchly pro-Israel is absolutely unchallenged. How is it possible that this perception has become so widespread, if in fact the opposite is true?

Gil-Whites:

The reason a mistaken perception of US policy toward Israel (and US policy more generally) has taken hold universally is that the mainstream Western media, every day, repeats a million times the opposite of the truth. “US foreign policy is pro-Israel, US foreign policy is pro-Israel...” This kind of repetition, from sources that news consumers assume to be free of governmental interference, has a decisive effect on public perceptions.

As for Gil-Whites own source, Edwin Black, whoops! there is another Zionist:

"Following in the beliefs of his parents, Black was from his earliest days an adherent of the Jewish national state of Israel. As a young man he spent time on a kibbutz, visited Israel on several other occasions, and gave earnest consideration to permanent residency there."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Black

See where I am getting at?

Could this be a classic case where they mix lies with truth? Isn't this actually a site ran by Zionist so they can go and point their fingers at the "Nazis" (National Zionists) and get another free pass to f### us over?

Before the Nazi Third Reich in Germany plotted to create a Master Race from the European gene pool, Zionists had already established a racial purification program to create the perfect Jewish bloodline.

A shocking new study reveals how key figures in the pre-state Zionist establishment proposed castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.'

It turns out there was a great deal of enthusiasm here for the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race (eugenics). This support, which has been kept under wraps for many years, is revealed in a study that examines the ideological and intellectual roots at the basis of the establishment of the health system in Israel.

For example, in 1934 Dr. Meir published the following text on the first page of "Mother and Child," a guide for parents that he edited for publication by Kupat Holim: "Who is entitled to give birth to children? The correct answer is sought by eugenics, the science of improving the race and preserving it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are already great and important - These cases [referring to marriages of people with hereditary disorders - T.T.] are not at all rare in all nations and in particular in the Hebrew nation that has lived a life of exile for 1,800 years. And now our nation has returned to be reborn, to a natural life in the land of the Patriarchs. Is it not our obligation to see to it that we have whole and healthy children in body and soul? For us, eugenics as a whole, and the prevention of the transmission of hereditary disorders in particular, even greater value than for all other nations

Now I would like someone please send me/post some info to prove that National Hitlers Germany actually were:

castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.'

- The Holocaust doesn't count now. I am talking about forcing people not to have children because of their social status or heritage.

Sorry for the sidetracking, admins just let me know in case you dont want a debate on this right now and I will delete the post and pick up this conversation in private with Dcopymope. I just don't wanna assume anything about any historic "truth" anymore.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is currently the top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, published a book in 1997 called "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives". In this book he outlines his case for how current American global supremacy should be used to further the long running plan of the globalist elite, which is the unification of the world under the dictates of the United Nations.

The Legacy of American Imperialism is United Nations Control:

"Accordingly, once American leadership begins to fade, America's current global predominance is unlikely to be replicated by any single state. Thus, the key question for the future is "What will America bequeath to the world as the enduring legacy of its primacy?" ? Pg. 210

"Meeting these challenges is America's burden as well as its unique responsibility. Given the reality of American democracy, an effective response will require generating a public understanding of the continuing importance of American power in shaping a widening framework of stable geopolitical cooperation, one that simultaneously averts global anarchy and successfully defers the emergence of a new power challenge. These two goals-- averting global anarchy and impeding the emergence of a power rival-- are inseparable from the longer-range definition of the purpose of America's global engagement, namely, that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation." ? Pg. 214

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN [United Nations] structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945."? Pg. 215

Zbigniew Brzezinski understood the many problems associated with the emergence of the United Nations out of the ashes of the American empire. He makes his contempt for what he calls "populist democracy" quite clear, because it puts limitations on his desired movements on “the grand chessboard” for global empire.

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion." ? Pg. 35

"A genuinely populist democracy has never before attained international supremacy. The pursuit of power and especially the economic costs and human sacrifice that the exercise of such power often requires are not generally congenial to democratic instincts. Democratization is inimical to imperial mobilization." ? Pg. 210

"Indeed, the critical uncertainty regarding the future may well be whether America might become the first superpower unable or unwilling to wield its power. Might it become an impotent global power?" ? Pg. 210

He also understood that the current culture of America is aimed at its ruination and the empire that few Americans realize they are a part of. Brzezinski highlights the effects the current culture has had on American society; lack of association with empirical accomplishments and goals, lack of social cohesion, individual decadence, decline of religious based values, etc. So he recognizes the need for a sudden emergence of a “direct external threat” to accomplish his “geostrategic imperatives”.

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War."? Pg. 211

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." ? Pg. 35

This was provided four years later by the attacks on 9/11, providing the pretext for the farcical ‘War on Terror” to invade the last few countries that are holding out against this emerging “international order” and putting them and all of their finite resources under the full control of the U.N.

"A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem in this unstable region. By exploiting religious hostility to the American way of life and taking advantage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Islamic fundamentalism could undermine several pro-Western Middle Eastern governments and eventually jeopardize American regional interests, especially in the Persian Gulf. However, without political cohesion and in the absence of a single genuinely powerful Islamic state, a challenge from Islamic fundamentalism would lack a geopolitical core and would thus be more likely to express itself through diffuse violence." ? Pg. 53

Terrorist Threat:

He also highlights the usefulness of the perceived "threat" of terrorism to push his globalist agenda.

"It is also noteworthy that international conflicts and acts of terrorism have so far been remarkably devoid of any use of the weapons of mass destruction. How long that self-restraint may hold is inherently unpredictable, but the increasing availability, not only to states but also to organized groups, of the means to inflict massive casualties-- by the use of nuclear or bacteriological weapons-- also inevitably increases the probability of their employment." ? Pg. 213

Creating the new global system with a global culture:

The planned collapse of the American empire must coincide with the emergence of the United Nations. Like the first director and founder of UNESO Sir Julian Sorell Huxley advocated the creation of a "single world culture" for world government, Brzezinski also describes the tools to be used to generate a more international culture required for the acceptance of and obedience to global government.

"These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web-- woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations, with many of them transnational in character) and scientific communities and reinforced by the Internet -- already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation." ? Pg. 215

An important step in establishing a world government run by the United Nations is the development of smaller multinational trade and political unions, which allows for a gradual weakening of nations as borders are slowly erased. This was strongly supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives". As I discussed in my previous post, Brzezinski makes it plainly clear that the role of the American empire is to pave the way for the emergence of the United Nations as the world government.

European Union:

"By pioneering in the integration of nation-states into a shared supranational economic and eventually political union, Europe is also pointing the way toward larger forms of postnational organization, beyond the narrow visions and the destructive passions of the age of nationalism." - Pg. 57

Brzezinski makes clear the need for the expansion of the European Union into central Europe, which was to be preceded by the expansion of NATO.

"In the current circumstances, the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary -- probably by 1999 -- appears to be likely. After this initial but significant step, it is likely that any subsequent expansion of the alliance will either be coincidental with or will follow the expansion of the EU. The latter involves a much more complicated process, both in the number of qualifying stages and in the meeting of membership requirements (see chart on page 83). Thus, even the first admissions into the EU from Central Europe are not likely before the year 2002 or perhaps somewhat later. Nonetheless, after the first three new NATO members have also joined the EU, both the EU and NATO will have to address the question of extending membership to the Baltic republics, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, and perhaps also, eventually, to Ukraine." - Pg. 81

"It follows, therefore, that states that are in a position to begin and are invited to undertake accession talks with the EU should automatically also be viewed henceforth as subject in effect to NATO's presumptive protection." - Pg. 83

"Given the growing consensus regarding the desirability of admitting the nations of Central Europe into both the EU and NATO, the practical meaning of this question focuses attention on the future status of the Baltic republics and perhaps also that of Ukraine." - Pg. 50

Asian Union:

China's industrial base was built up by this same group to take over from the U.S as the police men of the world, but it will only be for a short period of time, because they will also merge into the global system the exact same way as the U.S is doing now.

"A geostrategic issue of crucial importance is posed by China's emergence as a major power. The most appealing outcome would be to co-opt a democratizing and free-marketing China into a larger Asian regional framework of cooperation." - Pg. 54

American Union:

Brzezinski's role as a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations directly involves him in the current process of creating the North American Union. This plan includes the creation of a single currency tentatively called The Amero. A brief summary of the N.A.U proposals by the CFR can be read here.

It should also be noted that the plan to integrate the U.S, Canada and Mexico into the North American Union is a stepping stone to include the whole of South America, the same way the European Union initially began as a Western European Union.

Inter-Union Integration:

The establishment of the three main economic and political blocks will gradually be united into a single global form. This process recommended by Brzezinski is the exact same process used to initiate the three separate unions; free trade agreements.

"...the United States would do well to consider the adoption of an American-Japanese free trade agreement, thereby creating a common American-Japanese economic space. Such a step, formalizing the growing linkage between the two economies, would provide the geopolitical underpinning both for America's continued presence in the Far East and for Japan's constructive global engagement." - Pg. 192

"Tokyo can carve out a globally influential role by cooperating closely with the United States regarding what might be called the new agenda of global concerns, while avoiding any futile and potentially counterproductive effort to become a regional power itself. The task of American statesmanship should hence be to steer Japan in that direction. An American-Japanese free trade agreement, creating a common economic space, would fortify the connection and promote the goal, and hence its utility should be jointly examined." - Pg. 208

"A Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united EU and the United States. In any case, the EU's eventual success in burying the centuries-old European nationalist antagonisms, with their globally disruptive effects, would be well worth some gradual diminution in America's decisive role as Eurasia's current arbitrator." - Pg. 200

Once this process is complete and American primacy fades the United Nations will emerge as the global government.

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN [United Nations] structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privilegescan then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945." - Pg. 215

Bancor: The Name Of The Global Currency That A Shocking IMF Report Is Proposing

Sometimes there are things that are so shocking that you just do not want to report them unless they can be completely and totally documented. Over the past few years, there have been many rumors about a coming global currency, but at times it has been difficult to pin down evidence that plans for such a currency are actually in the works. Not anymore. A paper entitled "Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability"" by the Strategy, Policy and Review Department of the IMF recommends that the world adopt a global currency called the "Bancor" and that a global central bank be established to administer that currency. The report is dated April 13, 2010 and a full copy can be read here. Unfortunately this is not hype and it is not a rumor. This is a very serious proposal in an official document from one of the mega-powerful institutions that is actually running the world economy. Anyone who follows the IMF knows that what the IMF wants, the IMF usually gets. So could a global currency known as the "Bancor" be on the horizon? That is now a legitimate question.

So where in the world did the name "Bancor" come from? Well, it turns out that "Bancor" is the name of a hypothetical world currency unit once suggested by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a world famous British economist who headed the World Banking Commission that created the IMF during the Breton Woods negotiations.

The Wikipedia entry for "Bancor" puts it this way....

The bancor was a World Currency Unit of clearing that was proposed by John Maynard Keynes, as leader of the British delegation and chairman of the World Bank commission, in the negotiations that established the Bretton Woods system, but has not been implemented.

The IMF report referenced above proposed naming the coming world currency unit the "Bancor" in honor of Keynes.

So what about Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)? Over the past couple of years, SDRs have been touted as the coming global currency. Well, the report does envision making SDRs "the principal reserve asset" as we move towards a global currency unit....

"As a complement to a multi-polar system, or even--more ambitiously--its logical end point, a greater role could be considered for the SDR."

However, the report also acknowledges that SDRs do have some serious limitations. Since the value of SDRs are closely tied to national currencies, anything affecting those currencies will affect SDRs as well.

Right now, SDRs are made up of a basket of currencies. The following is a breakdown of the components of an SDR....

*U.S. Dollar (44 percent)

*Euro (34 percent)

*Yen (11 percent)

*Pound (11 percent)

The IMF report recognizes that moving to SDRs is only a partial move away from the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and urges the adoption of a currency unit that would be truly international. The truth is that SDRs are clumsy and cumbersome. For now, SDRs must still be reconverted back into a national currency before they can be used, and that really limits their usefulness according to the report....

"A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries."

So what is the answer?

Well, the IMF report believes that the adoption of a true global currency administered by a global central bank is the answer.

The authors of the report believe that it would be ideal if the "Bancor" would immediately be used as currency by many nations throughout the world, but they also acknowledge that a more "realistic" approach would be for the "Bancor" to circulate alongside national currencies at first....

"One option is for bancor to be adopted by fiat as a common currency (like the euro was), an approach that would result immediately in widespread use and eliminate exchange rate volatility among adopters (comparable, for instance, to Cooper 1984, 2006 and the Economist, 1988). A somewhat less ambitious (and more realistic) option would be for bancor to circulate alongside national currencies, though it would need to be adopted by fiat by at least some (not necessarily systemic) countries in order for an exchange market to develop."

So who would print and administer the "Bancor"?

Well, a global central bank of course. It would be something like the Federal Reserve, only completely outside the control of any particular national government....

"A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing."

In fact, at one point the IMF report specifically compares the proposed global central bank to the Federal Reserve....

"The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity."

So is that what we really need?

A world currency administered by an international central bank modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Not at all.

As I have written about previously, the Federal Reserve has devalued the U.S. dollar by over 95 percent since it was created and the U.S. government has accumulated the largest debt in the history of the world under this system.

So now we want to impose such a system on the entire globe?

The truth is that a global currency (whether it be called the "Bancor" or given a different name entirely) would be a major blow to national sovereignty and would represent a major move towards global government.

Considering how disastrous the Federal Reserve system and other central banking systems around the world have been, why would anyone suggest that we go to a global central banking system modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Let us hope that the "Bancor" never sees the light of day.

However, the truth is that there are some very powerful interests that are absolutely determined to create a global currency and a global central bank for the global economy that we now live in.

It would be a major mistake to think that it can't happen.

He forgot to add this quote in his article from Carroll Quigley's book 'Tragedy & Hope', the man who was on the inside of this long term agenda:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Would any free thinking person want their entire lives to be run "in a feudalistic fashion"? These words from Carroll are very disturbing indeed now that we are actually seeing them propose a global currency in official documents.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It was me who posted the "cash for gold" link. With the upcoming change in currency on the wayit does not surprise me that someone is buying up all the gold. Cash for gold has had a campaign running for years now(in the usa). i find it suspicious that they claim only "tens of thousands of transactions". Anyone have any thoughts on this?Their site is: cashforgold.com

AmongTheThugs wrote:It was me who posted the "cash for gold" link. With the upcoming change in currency on the wayit does not surprise me that someone is buying up all the gold. Cash for gold has had a campaign running for years now(in the usa). i find it suspicious that they claim only "tens of thousands of transactions". Anyone have any thoughts on this?Their site is: cashforgold.com

I can only say that I was always surprised to see Alex Jones selling gold from his radio network. For the little I understand to buy gold is not like buying groceries. You have to understand all the paperwork and certifications that come with it and you have to be able to see through it.

I wonder if and how many were easily cheated, buying one quality of gold for another in the panic of the "collapsing economy" and the preaching of one Ron Paul or one Alex Jones.

As to there being many entities that instead buy gold from people, this always happened in times of crisis. I can see it in every town I drive through in my country, how many shops there are that buy gold from people desperate for cash.

Personally, I hate the sole mention of this metal, and all the frenzy that surrounds it in one way or the other since the dawn of civilization.

p.s. Please in the future always comment/explain the links you post. It really looked like spamming.

AmongTheThugs wrote:It was me who posted the "cash for gold" link. With the upcoming change in currency on the wayit does not surprise me that someone is buying up all the gold. Cash for gold has had a campaign running for years now(in the usa). i find it suspicious that they claim only "tens of thousands of transactions". Anyone have any thoughts on this?Their site is: cashforgold.com

I can only say that I was always surprised to see Alex Jones selling gold from his radio network. For the little I understand to buy gold is not like buying groceries. You have to understand all the paperwork and certifications that come with it and you have to be able to see through it.

I wonder if and how many were easily cheated, buying one quality of gold for another in the panic of the "collapsing economy" and the preaching of one Ron Paul or one Alex Jones.

As to there being many entities that instead buy gold from people, this always happened in times of crisis. I can see it in every town I drive through in my country, how many shops there are that buy gold from people desperate for cash.

Personally, I hate the sole mention of this metal, and all the frenzy that surrounds it in one way or the other since the dawn of civilization.

p.s. Please in the future always comment/explain the links you post. It really looked like spamming.

The worse the economy gets the more hype you'll hear from salesman Alex Jones and his pals about gold being the solution to your survival and to save the economy, which is what we have been hearing from Ron Paul, obvious controlled opposition. If people think that gold is the answer in any way, you don't need to look any further than America’s own history to see how many times the very same money changers that is running your economy into the ground today did the same thing several times throughout the 1800’s using the gold standard. It is these money changers that decide what the price of gold is at any given moment because they own most of the worlds gold supply. You buy this shit, and when it becomes worthless they’ll buy it all back for pennies on the dollar, and they’ll make it illegal again to even own gold, just like they did before in 1933. It doesn't matter what kind of commodity you are using as a medium of exchange, as long as they are in control of that commodity we will continue to fall into the same con game they have been using since the day money was first invented.